Yeah, that's a real MC Escher illusion. I'd believe you if you said definitively that it hit the arm, but I'd also believe you if you said with certainty it didn't/
Clattenburg is almost unquestionably wrong. He's not a horrendous commentator, despite my frequent criticism, but he does play fast and loose with the intricacies of VAR (as he did when he refereed in Saudi Arabia). As I just said above, if this was checked for the out-of-bounds question, which it apparently was, then it almost certainly had to be checked for the alleged foul, which was two passes earlier. The APP is not about distance from goal or (mostly) number of passes. The alleged foul caused a chance of possession that started the attack. That's the start of the APP. The only question was whether the clearance by the Wales defender reset the APP. But again, if the boundary decision was checked then it didn't, which means the alleged foul was part of the check. Ultimately, VARs internationally have a very, very, very high threshold for what constitutes a "clear and obvious foul" in the APP. "Seen them given more often not," which I think this was, doesn't cut it. Things are different in some domestic competitions.
Good red card there. Clattenburg and Twellman just don't get it. Because the fact that it is 3-0 and the 90th minute is precisely why it is a red card. I get Twellman not supporting the decision, but Clattenburg?
Another SFP red for Wales. Clattenburg's argument that "now that Wales are going out, a yellow might have been better" sort of invites the question of it he would have said a red was better if the outcome hung in the balance? I doubt it. And now Twellman on about this referee getting another match. Ugh. Siebert was NEVER getting another match. Siebert hasn't been spectacular here, but I'm always amazed when commentators seem to have so little to talk about that they start getting into things like this that they clearly know nothing about and drawing all sorts of conclusions.
I mean, what is Twellman talking about? There was one bad yellow card and a no-foul that people don't like that led to a goal. And then a red card on a garbage challenge in a 3-0 game. And this match was officiated "differently" than the group stage? I need to find the mute button.
I feel like there's a weird dynamic between Twellman and Clatts that gets them trying to out-kvetch each other. Or something.
I would disagree as situational reds should not occur unless the criteria for a red card is met like a DOGSO. Bad tackle, absolutely, but should never be a red.
Twellman is abhorrent, but I did think the referee had a poor at best match. I cannot see him continuing in the tournament.
Based on how he confidently commentates on every single referee decision of every single game he does, I'm confused reading Twellman's bio. Apparently he was a professional player and not a referee ever at any level? Come on Taylor, yeah it's too late for you to reach a really high refereeing level, but take a class and you can at least get up to adult amateur, because it's clear you desperately want to be a ref and impart your superior rules and game management knowledge onto the game.
Of course not and Siebert wouldn't give the red card in a match that is still in the balance. That's what experienced and good referees do. Clattenburg could have provided some nuance and insight to viewers about how referees have to have a feel for the match and the temperature of the match when assessing challenges. Basically, not every foul or challenge is assessed by a referee in a vacuum. Score, time and location of the challenge matters. He, instead, basically says the most wrong thing you could say. Just awful.
The signficance of that didn't register with me until now! No way Hategan gets put next to the Wales technical area unless UEFA fully backed his red card in their match.
Mea culpa on Denmark's second goal, by the way. I had missed the intervention with the chest by the Welsh player at midfield. I though Denmark kept consistent possession through the midfield. Seeing it again, I think there's a high probability that did NOT count as the APP because Wales had every opportunity to possess the ball. That said, even if the alleegd foul was in the APP, I don't think a UEFA-trained VAR intervenes there unelss Siebert says he saw something that wasn't at all factual or supportable.
The main broadcast feed is what most supports the red card here: https://streamable.com/wth4qw It's not mode of contact or point of contact or even level of force. It's simply the fact that he's tackling from behind and he has absolutely zero intention to play the ball. The location of the ball and the manner in which the "tackle" is executed is what makes it an easily supportable, if not entirely correct, red card. Another thing to keep in mind here is that, unless the player is insane, he doesn't make that challenge in a 1-1 or 2-1 game. So it's not so much that we punish that tackle differently because it's 3-0, it's that we recognize the only reason he's doing it is because it's 3-0.
Thanks for posting. Live and re-running first angle at full speed, I was "sure" there was ball/hand. Only on slomo was I unsure. It's always somethin'...
I did and I disagreed with what you wrote because I felt that the referee had a poor match. I disagree with your contention as we see plenty of examples of players fouling with no intent of playing the ball that are from behind. Yes, intent matters, but game management with red cards needs to be utilized with jurisprudence. To me referee was too eager to hand out red in game that was nearly over for an incident that was a yellow card incident. Reds should be reserved for instances when the player/rules give the referee no other choice. In my opinion the referee had other choices, which included giving yellow with strong admonishment. Giving a red there felt like the referee wanted to stamp his authority in match, which was somewhat ridiculous when it was nearly over and the referee was not successful in doing so earlier.
No, the point about how Siebert was never getting another match in this tournament no matter what is what I was talking about and what you clearly did not understand if you read it. You made the same argument that Twellman did, which is that this performance ended his tournament. So, when he is not assigned again, you and Twellman and others will use it as proof that your assessment of his performance is accurate. Except it won’t be, because he wasn’t getting assigned again anyway. Your difference of opinion with me on his performance or the red card is of no interest to me, particularly because it’s pretty clear you don’t fully understand my arguments so it’s not worth exploring in depth. But the assertion that his tournament is over BECAUSE of this performance is worth combatting, because his tournament was over regardless. Ignorance to that fact should not allow people to then use it as a claim to support their opinion of his performance.